Featured Articles

Surviving the Contemporary Black Racial and White Intra-Racial Conflict: Anti-Millenarian Whites Must Seek Political Separation

In 1946 Winston Churchill delivered a speech at a small college in Fulton Missouri that offered this prescient analysis: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an ‘iron curtain’ has descended across the continent.” This Soviet invasion made a prison out of the entire area for half a century. Dissenters were severely punished.

Without notice or debate, a similar regimen of speech control is descending on North America, from Bar Harbor, Maine on the Bay of Fundy to Nome, Alaska on the Arctic Ocean, and south to the Rio Grande and the Straits of Florida.

Political correctness, a phrase used almost playfully in the 1990s, has morphed into the viciousness and moral smugness of our current cancel culture, replacing the spirit of the First Amendment. By way of example, I offer the following observation from an early victim of cancel culture, my friend the late Sam Francis.

“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”

Comments like this led to Francis being fired from his position as columnist for the Washington Times in 1995 and put him into media purgatory and economic distress until his premature death 10 years later.

Sam’s proposition makes no moral distinctions and is not much more than a paean to what in reality is his extended family. In the same context the creating people of Great Zimbabwe were Bantus, the creating people of China were Han, and the creating people of the Inca Empire were Quechuas. If, instead of making a claim about the racial origins of Europe and America, Sam had instead substituted any of these other peoples into his statement, it would have been equally plausible but would not have resulted in Sam’s discharge.

The frenzy to stigmatize any mention of genetics especially as playing a role in the development of White civilization began early in the twentieth century, essentially eradicating what had been a robust intellectual exchange based on the reality of race and the idea that there are important racial differences in behavior around the world. This anti-biologism came to dominate academic thinking after World War II and has become a bedrock attitude among those who are now labeled progressives. Such thinking is woven into contemporary intellectual tapestry; it is taught throughout the school system from elementary school through the university, and it characterizes  entire mainstream media landscape. Among its White adherents, it has assumed a millenarian vision of a utopian future free from all racial conflict—the same sort of millenarianism that has characterized the moral crusades of the past, from the Civil War to World War II, to our contemporary regime-change wars in the Middle East.

Susan Sontag proclaimed “The white race is the cancer of human history.” If we limit her universe to the U.S., I’d say that she was about 40% right as this was the Hillary Clinton fraction of the White vote in the 2016 presidential election. This means that the remaining 60% of White voters represent our side of the family—at least potentially.

One birthday short of becoming an octogenarian, I charge the dissident right with the mission to  begin the intergenerational process of founding an independent political jurisdiction in which anti-millenarian whites can gather, regroup and flourish. Along the way we will support other races with  the same aspiration.

To this end,  we must extract our side of the family from the embrace of the “White millenarians” who are yet intent on imposing their heretical notion of equality on Earth as it art in Heaven —even though the misery from such tampering with human nature abounds in history and has been particularly evident in the recent past.

Our goal must be a Bohemian Divorce of mutual self determination as deliberate and bloodless as the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. To this end there is long standing precedent which stretches back to the founding of the Republic when separation was recognized as a humane means  of resolving ethnic and racial conflicts and sovereign tracts of land were ceded to indigenes.

Once separation is established, the internal political arrangements are less important than the maintenance of a unifying ethos by enforcing a variant of the Amish practice of Rumpspringa. This exercise encourages youthful apostates to leave the commonwealth before achieving citizenship.  So that a mistake of inclusion is not immutable, I recommend making exile a part of the criminal and civil code, directed at those who are in fundamental disagreement with the ideal of a separate White community. Such a provision could also be used to correct immigration blunders.

We have entered very dangerous times for Whites in America. The  summer riots of 2020 carried out with the blessing of much of the Establishment and the entire left is a clear indication that the American racial experiment is careening toward disaster. Whites need a separate political jurisdiction.

William H. Regnery II is the founder of the Charles Martel Society.


Why De-Colonization is “Junk” History and “Reparations” Is the Junk-Bond Offering of BLM

1Junk-Bond: “A low-grade, high-risk security, typically issued by an organization seeking to raise capital quickly in order to finance a takeover.” Oxford Lexico

‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’George Orwell, 1984 (1949)

“Having agreeably transacted affairs with the African Prince in his King’s Court in the Kingdom of Whydah (he demanded gold payment of one hundred dollars for each of his prisoners) we went to their warehouse where he had in confinement four thousand captives from his raid of the Tarkbar people, all in a state of complete nudity from which he gave me liberty to select one hundred and twenty-five as mine, and offering to brand them for me, from which I preemptorily forbid; commenced taking on cargo of negroes, successfully securing on board one hundred and ten.”  Capt. William Foster, Journal of Clotilda, 1860, in present-day Benin and Ghana

“Looting is reparations.”  Ariel Atkins, BLM Chicago Organizer.

“The problem with oppression and White supremacy is, White supremacy will have you criticizing the oppressed and worshiping the oppressors. Nothing falls short of a solution other than cutting a check. If you want to do something about reparations, cut the check.” Hawk Newsome, Chair, BLM Greater New York

“It’s all about bucks; the rest is just conversation.”  Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987, 20th Century Fox

Put aside the disturbing reality of BLM’s criminal violence, and now, financial reparations extortion.  And put aside all of the legal ramifications to that organization and its enablers, in criminal law and domestic terror legislation (including the Patriot Act and RICO), and consider instead where its intellectual model even comes from—where this new genetic creation was conceptually incubated: In the history departments of America’s major universities (who then packaged and sold it to the legal academy, and to political science departments and public policy schools, with plentiful handouts to the broader social sciences and of course for its excitable ideological base camp, the Humanities).  For the past nearly two decades, a new crop of historians has sprung up in large research universities including Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, UCLA, and Chicago, who have nurtured and cultivated a practice area known as “Empire,” broadly within a “Colonialism” framework, and through the deep irrigating rows in that field, fed a saturating stream of racism and oppression psychology, political class struggle, and ultimately the expectation of a bountiful harvest of financial pay-back and restitution.

It is junk history and junk scholarship.

This crop of historians—creative and well-supported—have engaged in a fascinating form of historical revisionism or a new “historicism.”  It advances a “colonialism” and “empire” thesis that it appropriates from a rich, solid base of real economic history from mature scholars including Max Weber, Joseph Schumpeter, Gunner Myrdal, Friedrich Hayek, Charles Kindleberger, Douglass North, to former Eisenhower and Kennedy national security advisor W.W. Rostow at the University of Texas at Austin; Harvard’s David Landes; the economic history school at Cambridge University; even London School of Economics historian Nicholas Kaldor; Chicago’s Milton Friedman or Stanford’s Thomas Sowell—and then re-arranges, re-mixes and alters this genetic base of rigorous scholarship, and re-writes it in political and racial dimensions to include a general “oppression” narrative of “White Colonialism” and “European Empire” that lends itself to monetization, and into a reparations public policy platform, in the US, and now in Europe (evidently the “White Supremacy” Fatherland).  Its thematic elements are centered in legal, social and economic guilt and ultimately in election mechanics and wholesale political reordering. It is the New Bolshevism.  It is used as a financial extortion to satisfy grievance, and avoid more violence—a kind of “fine” or penalty in civil restitution theory, but more like organized crime and gang methods.  And it obviously fits well into modern fear-based election influencing, as is evident in the identity of BLM and the DNC.  And like Bolshevism, it celebrates violence for its own sake, with no idea or plan but perpetual psychological predation, economic control, and ideological coercion.[2]

Unfortunately the entire ‘reparations’ concept rests otherwise on some challenging scholarship. Congruent with other research, Gabriel Paquette has shown in his The European Seaborne Empires (Yale University Press, 2019) that the colonialism phenomenon was a product of a “chaotic pluralism,” or of such random private enterprise, that tying it to any particular nation—or campus, as in the case of current demands being made on the University of Chicago for “slavery reparations”—is impossible, or highly speculative, and therefore illogical, and ultimately, illegitimate.  The entire “reparations” concept rests on faulty scholarship, and a flawed hermeneutics of historical interpretation.  But it also stems from a classic scholarly “detour” after the ‘empire’ themes ran into trouble with incredibly complex records, conflicting information, and no clear unifying “grand theory” that could elegantly and conveniently present a thematic explanation as to European economic development and its manifestations in the New World.  So academic historians invented one.  One that also fit their natural suspicions, prejudice and hostilities: It must have all been the product of capitalism, along with a set of cultural behaviors including greed, possession, duplicity, and enslavement.  And who better a villain than White Europeans themselves (who conveniently left the Western historians with understandable anthropological artifacts, and convenient academic bias confirmation.). And who better to have endured such disadvantages and exploitation than the ‘silent suffering:’ the primitive, the other.  And who in more need of intellectual emancipation and advocacy—a ‘reframing” of history through the new tools of scholarship, and a final reckoning for the oppressor?  The new history is a theory of revenge.

This made me wonder about the entire “reparations” construct going on now: how do you identify and assign a target and a center of modern liability, to a modern nation-state or corporation even, when empire and colonialism where of such porosity and chaos among an unruly, massive private sector of various individuals and small companies, and many with complicated trade agreements and shared resources?   It seems you would have to dig up an awful lot of dead bodies to find out, and to extract your payment.[3]

A fundamental problem with the new ‘racial historicism,’ is that the scholars promoting it also have little if any credentials in economics and traditional political economic history (such as in the spirit of Smith, Locke, Hume, Ricardo, Mill, Malthus and others) and are instead fully pledged members of Cultural Marxism and its obvious weakness for explanatory history in class concepts, and by extension, race.  They are also generally weak in statistical methods, and have limited, or no working experience whatsoever in the private sector; or in commercial and business enterprises, where economic history is tangibly centered (Thomas Picketty is an example). This leads to highly stylized, abstract and above all ideological mental models of history, and an attraction to retail politics and mass cognitive susceptibilities, where their wares can sell (especially if it advocates for redistribution through taxation). An especially attractive market is in the intake and breeding of new Ph.D recruits, fresh out of even more indoctrination from 4 or more years of academic influencing and molding.

The “de-colonization” concept also suffers from a broad mischaracterization of both its subject and its object: the development and growth of human colonies, societies, economies and other systems and features, are not so much the products of cultural anthropology or of social systems, but more strictly biological, like the growth of a forest or prairie, a coral reef or if you prefer, a natural animal colony (with man’s tool-making technology).  So, to “de-colonize” is more to ‘de-humanize.”  It is a misanthropic enterprise (it competes in that regard, with the UN’s Agenda programs in demographic and de-population management, in concert with private sector entities including the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Future Scenarios” program.  The C19 program is one such manifestation).

The other cognitive error that de-colonization advocates make is to frame their entire worldview in history itself, and are blinded to “colonization” right in front of them.  China’s slow absorption of Africa is an example, as is Israel’s de-population and geopolitical agenda in its “Pan-Israel” Middle East Transformation project, now in its 20th year (as for slavery proper, BLM also overlooks entirely the digital ‘Panopticon’ encroachment, in addition to its transformed cognitive basis).  Indeed, by overlooking current Sino-Colonialism, the de-colonization school is missing one of the most profound geopolitical and social threats in the world today, while it busies itself with statues, flags and spray paint.  (China is the modern slave state empire.  And it is the BLM/Cultural Marxist/De-Colonization role model. This is incubating a powerful, growing consensus for a renewed “Anglosphere” to combat, in part, what is the de-colonization school’s real name: de-humanization).[4]

But it gets more inconvenient for the “reparations” syndicate: the single biggest block of identifiable common participants in the slave trade were Africans themselves.  So, does that make West Africa especially, the epicenter of a reparations scheme?  Certainly the spoils are rich in oil, minerals and land, and the Chinese, the most aggressive new “colonialists” because of it.[5]

Moreover, what does BLM have to say back here in the US, to the world’s modern slave owner class themselves: other Blacks?  The American Black population makes up the country’s biggest concentration of ethnic predation in murder, prostitution, human trafficking, and drug crime, on other Blacks, while Black men run the inner-city Black gang syndicates, and recruit and “enslave” Black male youth, into the chains of their violence, extortion and social alienation.  Blacks are the Black’s worst enemy, their greatest source of predation, commercial exploitation, manipulation and cognitive slavery.  From Colonial history itself, to the “Reverend” Al Sharpton; from Louis Farrakhan to Jeremiah Wright to Barack Obama himself, who as a “community organizer” makes a career of provoking anger, envy, racial divide and most of all, self-hatred. He stoked the fires of revenge fantasy, joined by a cheering crowd of celebrity Blacks, including Oprah Winfrey and academia’s anachronistic racial opportunists such as Harvard’s Cornel West and Henry Gates.

But there is also another twist to BLM’s reparations agenda: whether the 14th amendment was even constitutionally ratified.[6]

Blacks themselves however, do not apparently accept the 14th amendment, ratified or not; in fact BLM is “ratifying” through its behavior and demands, that it was administratively deficient, as they are still evidently bound in chains, oppressed by their (global) White masters, and seeking to substitute economic freedom for taxpayer reparations in the US and EU.[7]  BLM is effectively asserting  (through their current criminal violations) that they were never freed (a “knee on our neck”).  Moreover, there is a “Takings Clause” complication in reparations to slave owners (The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation”).[8]  BLM criminal riots and destruction also fall effectively under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause. Blacks were brought to America on a Slave-ship, not a Citizen-ship: the were given a natural law emancipation under constitutional law, deficient though the amendment is in actual ratification.[9] 

Moreover, if the abolitionist doctrine of natural rights of ‘property’ that each individual possesses in and of themselves, a Lockian “self-ownership,” then birthright would be a second-order right by, as Eastman argues, a process of acquired and earned rights leading to loyalty by effective contract (yet minors, even, cannot be party to contracts, nor vote as a citizen, but effectively through the parent).  Why otherwise would the state issue a “social security” number to a newborn, but through application by the parent?  The state is not sovereign over the child, unless abandoned, or able to act in loco parentis in any manner (or “cannot deprive or divest their posterity”).

Moreover, if BLM advances the position that they are still effectively enslaved (a ”knee on our necks”) and their enslavement is the product of White Supremacy ‘slave owners,’ then the entire reparations argument is turned on its head: payment must be made under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, not to the slave, but to the slave owner, as compensation and consideration under the constitutional Clause.

Moreover, all current BLM criminal violation, destruction of personal and public property, arson, physical violence, pain and suffering, must be also be compensated back to the public at large, and also pro rata to Whites in settlement of pain and suffering, trauma, damages, duress and loss of life and livelihood.  Those current physical damages alone total over $10 billion, plus replacement costs, insurance premiums and loss of business.  BLM’s domestic terror could be cited as a war crime as well, under UN law, and as a domestic constitutional assault characterized as treason, can also be cited under strict Constitution violation, as well as Section 2.3 of the US Department of Defense Law of War Manual which defines crimes against humanity as the principle that forbids the infliction of suffering, injury or destruction unnecessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose.  BLM insists it has a legitimate purpose and is armed, outfitted, organized and led as an effective standing army, directed explicitly as a combatant against US citizens.[10]

Minneapolis alone has been called “the most expensive civil disturbance in US history.” [11]  BLM should also be required to post bond for its clearly enunciated intention to produce continual riots, property destruction and mayhem across the US not only until the election, but beyond, indefinitely, if they don’t get what they demand.  Indeed, the State of Wisconsin as of 25 August, declared a state-of-emergency after an obvious BLM agitation program was activated in Kenosha, leading to mass rioting and destruction.[12]  BLM is an extortion outfit.  The ideological founder and central agitator behind BLM is former US president and University of Chicago Law lecturer Barack Obama, the “community organizer.”[13]  BLM is his “plantation,” and academic servants and apologists such as former economic advisor and UChicago professor Austan Goolsbee and Harvard Law’s Cass Sunstein, his effective “slaves.”[14]

Indeed, the modern academy embraces and even opportunistically stokes and fans racial agitation, which merely feeds its student intake machinery and triggers more finance, grants, loans and donations (an immediate abandonment of all professional standards in an eager broadcasting and ratification of the George Floyd event by modern law schools, is an example). Perhaps the most immediate reparations solution is academia itself: an organized syndicate of special interests with an ideological axe to grind, and money to make by selling hatred and the fantasy of ancient vengeance and retribution—one of man’s most reliable passions.  Some of the worst offenders come from our so-called elite universities—and further amplified, taught and activated in policy, especially through their law schools, which are the modern workshops and strategic centers for social justice.[15]

In modern finance, “junk bonds” are a form of corporate debt, issued by organizations that cannot qualify for credit-based lending.  They have insufficient assets for collateral, have unclear prospects and competitive legitimacy, but will bait buyers with hopes and promises of a large ‘upside’ to make up for their underlying lack of resources and clarity.  They rarely are redeemed. Such is the market for BLM and race theory: BLM is the modern cultural junk bond.  It might indeed be an appropriate time to demand a refund in product liability and financial fraud terms, under ‘academic reparations.’  Too many of our nation’s students, including our young Ph.D professors, are suffering a form of cognitive slavery, and victims not of race, but ideology, and junk history.

As for history itself, suppose for a moment that Aristotle’s ancient observation and opinion of an involuntary slave class in his time, is alive and well today in ours, but replaced with a new slave— equally indentured—one notionally emancipated, but worse, has voluntarily surrendered his freedom and virtue to the comforting consensus of ideological solidarity, and his thinking, abandoned; a sword laid down in defeat.  Suppose Aristotle’s slave is even more a phenomenon today; a larger class; a swelling mass, equally unable but mostly unwilling, to command the virtues of maturity, and the self-sovereignty of real citizenship?  How would, or should, an “Aristotelean” interpretation find its bearings in such obvious modern intellectual slavery?  And what student, or professor, who casually accepts the comforting narratologies of identitarian moralism mixed with envy and contempt, is deserving of being a “free man” in a free society?[16]

Our Nation’s young adults should instead be liberated by the highest of restitutions: an independent mind.

[1] V.S. Solevyev is a technology writer and legal scholar.

[2] “He is mobilizing resentments among Blacks and others, and organizing them into battle, to get what they want from other people.  Community organizers divide and polarize.  But long before he came along, there was an attitude going back to Woodrow Wilson, repudiating the principles of the United States.”  Dr. Thomas Sowell, The Hoover Institute, Stanford University (Ph.D University of Chicago) on Barack Obama, Acorn, and other racial agitators, from Dismantling America, interviewed by Peter Robinson, Uncommon Knowledge, 19 August 2010

[3] See  https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/06/reparations-madness-mary-grabar/, and https://dissidentprof.com/index.php/8-home/155-reparations-a-history-lesson

[4] See ‘Why is Xi Jinping pitting China against the world?’  The Guardian, 23 July 2020

[5] See “It’s Time to Revive the Anglosphere: The U.K. should form a new union with Canada, Australia and New Zealand to work as a global partner of the U.S.,” WSJ, 8 August 2020.   “The Anglosphere is the name given to all those countries in the world where the majority of people speak English as their first language, almost all of which have similar outlooks and shared values. The four “Canzuk” countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. are a prominent historical subset of this larger group, and there is a mounting case that some form of federation among them—with free trade, free movement of people, a mutual defense organization and combined military capabilities—would create a new global superpower and ally of the U.S., the great anchor of the Anglosphere. Although the Canzuk idea traces its roots back to early 20th-century debates over the Imperial Federation, when Joseph Chamberlain was the British colonial secretary, the discussions taking place among its proponents today—mostly conservative policy intellectuals but also a growing number of political figures—are rooted powerfully in the present and in a cool assessment of realpolitik. The Canzuk Union would immediately enter the global stage as a superpower, able to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S. in the great defining struggle of the 21st century against an increasingly revanchist China.”   The problem with the De-Colonization Left, however, is that China is in fact their precise role model.

[6] https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/was-the-fourteenth-amendment-constitutionally-adopted/

[7] See the unfortunate racial agitation essay by UChicago political science professor Adom Getachew, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/opinion/sunday/decolonization-statues.html

[8] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/takings.  The public use provision stems in part from the conversion of slave owner profits and economic benefits from slave labor, to the freeman labor taxation by government.  Free slaves represented enormous new tax revenues to both Northern federal and state government that was shielded by private ownership, and largely in Southern, competing states.

[9] https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/was-the-fourteenth-amendment-constitutionally-adopted/

[10] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/law-of-war/principles/C314D298E401BA696E74DE30233D2D17

[11] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/george-floyd-protests-expensive-civil-disturbance-us-history

[12] https://www.fox6now.com/news/gov-evers-announces-state-of-emergency-in-wisconsin-curfew-set-for-3rd-night-in-kenosha

[13] https://mynorthwest.com/1922840/herman-fraud-human-rights-history-barack-obama-leadership-black-lives-matter/?

[14] My argument is somewhat cynical and sarcastic, but still logical, which is, if BLM considers themselves still “slaves” (a “knee on their neck”) then they must not accept the 14th amendment which freed them.  If they are not free and still slaves, then they are owned, they assert, effectively, by “White” slave owners.  Unfortunately they also trigger an interesting and still debated contention that under the Takings Clause of the 5th amendment, slave owners should have been compensated.  So BLM’s reparations argument could be taken–by a strictly pragmatic legal theorist–as invoking a legal reparations duty to all current White Americans.  But even putting that somewhat sarcastic argument aside, the 2020 BLM domestic terror violence has already created “the most expensive civil disturbance” in US history (potentially), and BLM has, in my interpretation, incurred a liability for damages of $10 Billion so far, and they should post bond for their public comments to continue and expand such terror.  Obama, as the BLM founder, should have his estate liened as damages reparations.

[15] “The radicals have turned race into a lens through which to view the country’s history, and not simply because they are obsessed with race. They have done so because it allows them to identify and separate those groups that deserve affirmation, in their view, and those that do not. What is taking place is the re-segregation of America, the endpoint of which will be the rejection of everything the civil-rights movement stood for.  The nature of this exercise, with its sledgehammer rhetoric that obliterates complexities in favor of one-dimensional “correct” interpretations, is as close to Marxist agitprop as one can get.  The current radical trends carry the seeds of violence unseen in the U.S.  I am deeply concerned about what has happened to our educational system.  I spent almost 25 years in academia watching up close the neo-Marxist takeover of our college and university curricula (and pushing against it).  Until we dismantle the educational cartel that indoctrinates our children, we will fail.  –Dr. Andrew A. Michta, Dean, College of International and Security Studies, the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.   ‘The Captive Mind and America’s Resegregation: Idol smashing and cancel culture are part of a broad ideological project to dominate society’,  1 August, The Wall Street Journal

[16] “The faction principally responsible for the regressive stagnation of civic dialogue referred to as “multiculturalist coercive moralists,” or “social justice warriors” confuse being offended with being oppressed. Coercive moralism turns on this single claim: to be offended is to be oppressed [and] the entire world is responsible for their psychological and emotional well-being.  As long as multiculturalist coercive moralists cannot cope, their position is callous, feeble, and ridiculous, but above all hypocritical. And this, in turn, disqualifies them from being the self-appointed Warriors of Social Justice who will, by themselves and by coercive moralist fiat, reshape and transform our societies for the better.” –Otto Paans, Technische Universität Berlin

Black Brains Shatter: The Intellectual and Ethical Bankruptcy of Black Lives Matter

If you’re looking for a truly powerful pleasure-drug, then forget heroin, cocaine or crystal meth. They’re crude, fast-fading and unreliable. No, for a real rush that’s guaranteed not to fade or falter, you need what Black Lives Matter (BLM) and their allies are on — the three most powerful pleasure-drugs known to humanity.

History’s greatest drug-dealer

The three drugs are called narcissism, self-righteousness and malice. And not only are they completely legal and available in unlimited quantities at no cost to the addict, you can receive full instructions in their use from the most prestigious and respected institutions in the Western world. From the Ivy League to Oxbridge, from the New York Times to the Guardian, from the ADL to the BBC, expert drug-dealers are ready and eager to teach you everything you need to know about where to obtain your supplies and how to inject.

But the greatest drug-dealer of all lived and died in the nineteenth century. Fortunately, we still have his instruction-manuals and a host of his disciples have worked to interpret and explain them for each new generation. And who was that world-historic dealer in narcissism, self-righteousness and malice? It was Karl Marx (1818-83), of course. Marx himself never won the power he longed to wield and abuse, but the “toxicity” of his ideas (as Guardianistas would put it) was just as apparent to some of his contemporaries as it was to those who suffered under Marxist regimes during the twentieth century. The Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski (1927-2009) lived through Stalinism and his magisterial critique Main Currents of Marxism (1978) reported the prophetic words of the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814—76):

Bakunin … not only combated Marx’s political programme but, as he often wrote, regarded Marx as a disloyal, revengeful man, obsessed with power and determined to impose his own despotic authority on the whole revolutionary movement. Marx, he said, had all the merits and defects of the Jewish character; he was highly intelligent and deeply read, but an inveterate doctrinaire and fantastically vain, an intriguer and morbidly envious of all who … cut a more important figure than himself in public life. (pg. 248) Bakunin … inveighed against universities as the abodes of elitism and seminaries of a privileged caste; he also warned that Marxist socialism would lead to a tyranny of intellectuals that would be worse than any yet known to man. (Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. I, The Founders, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pg. 250)

Yes, Karl Marx was indeed highly intelligent and fantastically vain, but his latter-day disciples in Black Lives Matter are only fantastically vain. High intelligence is not characteristic of Blacks and BLM are not bucking the trend. Their crusade is emotional, not intellectual. And it’s emotional in the most direct and satisfying way, being fuelled by those three mighty pleasure-drugs of narcissism, self-righteousness and malice. But I think Black brains would shatter if they were asked to properly address one simple question: Why are Whites the evil exploiters and Blacks the virtuous victims?

Omnia Ex Alea

On a progressive reading of history and human biology, there is only one possible answer: It was pure, unadulterated chance. Whites are evil exploiters and Blacks are virtuous victims simply because that’s the way the historic dice happened to roll. If the dice had rolled another way, it would have been the other way around. Blacks could just as easily have enslaved Whites, just as easily have set forth from the heartless headquarters of a cruel capitalist Africa to ravage the gentle, egalitarian societies of a peaceful pastoral Europe. After all, progressive dogma insists that “We Are All the Same Under the Skin” and that “There Is Only One Race — the Human Race.” But Blacks themselves haven’t created that dogma or imposed it so effectively on academia and the media. Blacks don’t have the necessary intelligence and ability to spin seductive webs of high-sounding words.

Progressive dogma: “There is Only One Race — the Human Race!”

But Jews do. And it’s Jews who have been the most effective creators of and propagandists for the progressive dogma of absolute and unequivocal equality between all human groups. “There is only One Race — the Human Race.” Furthermore: “There is Only One Brain — the Human Brain.” The Jewish progressive Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) preached those falsehoods throughout his career in award-winning best-sellers like The Mismeasure of Man (1981). And the Jewish progressive Jared Diamond (born 1937) continues to preach them. Diamond is perhaps the greatest living exponent of the idea that the superiority of White Europeans in warfare, technology and science is owed to mere biogeographic accident. You might say Diamond preaches the doctrine of Omnia Ex Alea — “all things from the dice.” In other words, all apparent White achievements are the product of undeserved luck. But Diamond’s underlying goyophobia, or hatred of White gentiles, is apparent even as he preaches this supposedly objective doctrine. Why did Europe conquer Africa and not vice versa? It was Omnia Ex Alea, ladies and gentlemen — the biogeographic dice just happened to roll in Europe’s favour:

All of Africa’s mammalian domesticates — cattle, sheep,  goats, horses, even dogs — entered sub-Saharan Africa from the north, from Eurasia or North Africa. At first that seems astonishing, since we now think of Africa as the continent of big wild animals. In fact, none of those famous big wild mammal species of Africa proved domesticable [Gregory Cochran disagrees]. They were all unqualified by one or another problem such as: unsuitable social organization; intractable behaviour; slow growth-rate, and so on. Just think what the course of world history would have been like if Africa’s rhinos and hippos had lent themselves to domestication! If it had been possible, African cavalry mounted on rhinos or hippos would have made mincemeat of European cavalry mounted on horses. But it couldn’t happen. (Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?)

Diamond obviously likes the idea of Blacks making “mincemeat” of White gentiles. You can see the same hostility to White gentiles in Diamond’s award-winning best-seller Guns, Germs and Steel (1997), when he imagines “bedraggled” Spaniards being “driven into the sea” by Aztec cavalry:

That’s an enormous set of differences between Eurasian and Native American societies — due largely to the Late Pleistocene extinction (extermination?) of most of North and South America’s former big wild mammal species. If it had not been for those extinctions, modern history might have taken a different course. When Cortes and his bedraggled adventurers landed on the Mexican coast in 1519, they might have been driven into the sea by thousands of Aztec cavalry mounted on domesticated native American horses. Instead of the Aztecs dying of smallpox, the Spaniards might have been wiped out by American germs transmitted by disease-resistant Aztecs. American civilizations resting on animal power might have been sending their own conquistadores to ravage Europe. But those hypothetical outcomes were foreclosed by mammal extinctions thousands of years earlier. (Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, 1997, ch. 18)

Jared Diamond isn’t conducting objective science and dispassionately analysing history, as Kevin MacDonald saw during “a talk by Diamond at a large packed lecture hall at Cal Tech in the early 2000s. When he gleefully fantasized about Africa conquering Europe, the crowd burst into applause.” Diamond’s fantasies appeal to the envy and malice of non-Whites and Jews, and to the misguided individualism of Whites, who enjoy punishing members of their own race for ethical transgressions (see the concept of “altruistic punishment”). As Diamond himself put it, Whites are tainted by the “stink of racism.” But if Diamond’s ideas are true, there is no stink and no true ethical transgression. It’s the impersonal forces of biogeography and chance that have governed history, not innate differences between human groups. We are all the same under the skin, but we don’t all occupy the same environment, which is the only reason that some groups have conquered or out-performed other groups.

Leftists pursue power, not truth

It follows, then, that Evil Exploiters and Virtuous Victims can occur in all possible permutations of colour and creed. But it also follows that exploiters aren’t “evil” and victims aren’t “virtuous.” Such terms don’t make sense in leftist ideology, because all groups — Whites and non-Whites, men and women, gays and straights — are capable of any kind of behaviour in the right (or wrong) historical circumstances. However, leftists don’t care when their ideas don’t make sense. Leftism isn’t designed to explain reality or to correct its alleged faults, but to win power for leftists and to meet their emotional needs. That’s why you’ll never see any hint from BLM and other high-priests of anti-racism that non-Whites can be “racist” too, or that non-Whites are capable of abusing the power that they are demanding so self-righteously.

Blacks as Foot Soldiers for What Is Essentially a Jewish Coup: Where Jews lead, Blacks follow: Saul Alinsky, Godfather of Political Chaos

After all, if the high-priests admitted all that, they couldn’t be self-righteous. And self-righteousness is central to the protests and riots organized by BLM. It’s both highly satisfying in itself and highly effective as a stimulus for action. BLM is powered by the idea that Blacks are innately virtuous and Whites are innately evil. That idea makes no sense by progressive ideology and the Omnia Ex Alea school of history, but ideas don’t have to make sense to inspire action and change history. And speaking of history, here is a highly eloquent indictment of its chief villains. Indeed, its only villains:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. [italics in original] (See “Susan Sontag’s Jewish World,” Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, 17th October 2017)

That is the “highly intelligent” and “fantastically vain” Jewish ideologue Susan Sontag (1933–2004) supplying more  ammunition for the unintelligent but still “fantastically vain” non-Whites of Black Lives Matter. I disagree with Sontag, of course. I don’t think the White race is the cancer of human history. If human history has a cancer, that cancer is Jewish ideology and the Jewish Culture of Critique that simultaneously — and self-refutingly — preaches the Absolute Equality of Humanity and the innate depravity of White gentiles.

The Transformation of Europe as an Elite Project: Review of The Blackening of Europe, by Clare Ellis

Clare Ellis
The Blackening of Europe: Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments
Arktos, 2020.

“When this majority-minority shift occurs, there will be an unprecedented transfer of political power from European peoples to non-Europeans, essentially signalling the final endpoint of Europeans’ sovereignty over their ancestral homelands.”

One of the great tragedies of modern times has been the warped and perverse bureaucratic and institutional form taken by the noble idea of European brotherhood. Once promoted by figures like Sir Oswald Mosley as a means to European resurgence, the unity of Europe in recent decades has instead become a byword for mass migration, repressive speech laws, “human rights” insanity, and ethnocultural suicide. How did it happen? The common understanding in our circles is often very simplistic, relying heavily on caricatures of what has become known as the Kalergi Plan. The Kalergi Plan narrative, as we will discuss below, of course has its merits, and its simplicity is one of them. But for some time I’ve been hoping for the arrival of a text that could be considered the definitive, nuanced, and comprehensive account of how the notion of European unity became a vehicle for European destruction. While Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe was a useful step in the right direction, I believe that it is only with the publication of the first volume of Clare Ellis’s The Blackening of Europe that we finally have the account we deserve. And while I have yet to read the second and third volumes, I eagerly await them in the belief that, taken together, this trilogy will represent one of the seminal ‘Third Positionist’ works of the last two decades.

I have to be honest that prior to the publication of The Blackening of Europe I hadn’t heard of Clare Ellis. This is due more to my own ignorance than any lack of activity on her part, and Clare’s credentials really do speak for themselves. A close associate and former PhD student of Ricardo Duchesne, Clare has written for both the Council of European Canadians and The Occidental Quarterly. I think The Blackening of Europe will, and should, raise her profile considerably. Clare’s research at the University of New Brunswick concerned the demographic and political decline of native Europeans in their own homelands. How much of her PhD material made it into the book isn’t immediately clear, but there certainly seems to be a strong crossover in thematic content.

In brief, the first volume of The Blackening of Europe ambitiously attempts to map the various strands of ideological, political, economic, and social thought and action that combined to warp, define, and pervert the idea of European unity, from its inception to its most modern incarnation. The text features a wide range of information I was familiar with, and very much that I wasn’t, including early eighteenth-century concepts of European unity, the ideas of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School, the European-Israel relationship, Arab oil embargoes, theories on cosmopolitanism from Kant and Marx to Habermas and Nussbaum, a critical micro-history of Liberalism, Jewish hypocrisy, and an examination of Conservatism and neoconservatism. Fortunately, given the dizzying array of information being offered for consideration, Ellis is a capable guide, structuring the book is a sensible, well-organised manner, and writing in a clear, insistent, and authoritative style.

Ellis begins the book with a familiar, but no less stark and disturbing, fact: “Indigenous Europeans are becoming demographic and political minorities in European nation-states.” There’s a brief discussion of the collapse in European birth rates, but Ellis is clear on the real disaster unfolding before our eyes: “It is not the low fertility rate of Europeans that renders them ethnic minorities within their own nations, but elite-sanctioned large-scale non-European immigration, which began about sixty years ago and which is now integral to the cosmopolitan EU project.” In the context of this project,

indigenous Europeans and their political and cultural institutions and identities are undergoing processes of erasure — stigmatisation, marginalisation, deprivation, and replacement — by mandated immigrationism, multiculturalism, and other methods of forced diversification, while resistance to their political and cultural marginalisation and demographic dispossession is criminalised.

Implicit in Ellis’s account is the accusation both that the decline of Europeans is deliberately engineered and that it violates “various rights of native Europeans as well as international laws that prohibit genocide in any form.”

The book is divided into two parts. The first is “Central Influences on the Formation of the European Union,” which is a mixture of history, politics, and economics. Part II of the book is titled “Deep Ideological Currents,” and is predominantly philosophical and political. The first part of the book is further divided into three sections: “Early European Integration,” “The Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School,” and “International Geopolitical Developments.” In “Early European Integration” we are introduced to the growth of pan-European thought in the middle of the Enlightenment, with references to a European union found in the writings of George Washington, Victor Hugo, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. These figures promoted unity and cosmopolitanism as a means to bringing peace to a continent long-steeped in almost perpetual war, and Kant’s ideas were particularly influential in the rise of “Peace Leagues” at the start of the nineteenth century. What we see even at these very early stages, however, was a mingling of intentions and differing interpretations of cosmopolitanism. The cosmopolitanism of Kant retained a national character, and was predominantly geared towards the achievement of peace. Europeans within the peace leagues, such as the Union for Democratic Control (UDC, 1914) more or less echoed the same sentiments, but they unwittingly provided cover for those possessing ulterior motives and radically different ideas about cosmopolitanism. Although not mentioned by Ellis, the British Jewish intellectual Israel Zangwill was a co-founder and key figure on the executive of the Union for Democratic Control, and from October 1914 it was Zangwill who provided the UDC with its headquarters.[1] From this base, Zangwill pumped out European “unity” propaganda that attacked what Ellis calls “the nationalist canon,” not with the sole focus of achieving European peace but of promoting feminism and his own idea of “the melting pot” or widespread mixing of peoples and the end of national identity. As is common with such Jewish activists, however, Zangwill was reluctant to live out his own philosophy, marrying within his ethnic group (Jewish feminist Edith Ayrton) and spending most of his life promoting Jewish causes.

Zangwill was probably a key influence on Count Richard Nikolaus Eijiro von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894–1972), the cosmopolitan geopolitician and philosopher whose name has become synonymous with the worst of the European Union project. Kalergi was himself the product of miscegenation, having an Austro-Hungarian father and a Japanese mother, and he spent much of his life producing a blend of pacifist and European integrationist literature. Ellis carefully contextualises Kalergi, once described by Hitler as a “cosmopolitan bastard,” over the course of some 25 pages, and examines his thought in detail. There were some novel revelations for me, including his self-conscious participation in Freemasonry, his quite extensive reliance upon Jewish finance, and his extremely strange and dangerous fantasy that Jews were the ideal leaders of the future European state. That being said, Ellis provides enough information on Kalergi’s thought to cast doubt on the existence of a clearly-defined “Kalergi Plan.” Much of Kalergi’s work promoted European unity under three banners—peace, civilization (including renewed European colonization of Africa), and trade. Kalergi believed that Europeans shared a common cultural destiny and that Europe should be a world power on the same level as the United States and the Soviet Union. And while he eulogized the notion that the European man of the future would be of mixed race, he does not appear anywhere to have actively promoted immigration to Europe and in fact wrote: “Europe must at all costs prevent that great number of black workers and soldiers from immigrating to Europe.” Ellis comments that although Kalergi was wrong to reduce European identity to a matter of “morals and of style,” he “did not intend for large-scale immigration into Europe from non-European peoples, especially from Africa and the Muslim Middle-East.”

As in the Union of Democratic Control, which housed different goals, interests and ideological trajectories, Kalergi emerges from Ellis’s account as an ideologically and racially confused individual, in possession of eccentric, irrational, and often contradictory theories, and acting often at the hands of much more powerful forces with ulterior motives. By far the strangest of Kalergi’s theories was the idea that the new united Europe should be governed by a “spiritual aristocratic leadership” that “can only be found in the Jewish people.” These traits, according to Kalergi, “predestine Jews to be leaders of urban humanity, the protagonists of capitalism as well as the revolution.” As Ellis puts it:

It would not be the European aristocrats that would lead the new Europe to unification and finally world federation; rather it would be the interplay of the leaders of both Jewish capitalism and Jewish socialism alone who would take over and dominate the forces of European power and determine its destiny.

That Kalergi was probably directly influenced by the work of Zangwill in this regard is almost beyond doubt, and Jewish influence here is compounded by the fact Kalergi was funded by his friend Louis Nathaniel de Rothschild, and the Jewish bankers Max Warburg, Felix Warburg, Paul Warburg, and Bernard Baruch. As well as receiving financial backing, Kalergi was in “constant intellectual dialogue” with Max Warburg, who may have shaped some of Kalergi’s ideas on putative Jewish supremacy. Ellis points out that after World War II, when the first steps towards a unified European bureaucratic structure were being taken, some scholars have argued that “the Pan European Movement and Union were appropriated by people who wished to use it for their own ends.”

These “people,” essentially technocrats, politicians and lawyers, are situated by Ellis within the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School. The Fabian Society, which aimed for a slow and steady socialist revolution in society, is explained as more or less a club of well-intention British utopian socialist eccentrics until it merged in the 1920s with Rothschild finance and received the generous backing of British Jewish banker Sir Ernest Cassel; it also enjoyed the backing of the Rockefeller Foundation and J.P. Morgan. All were involved in the founding of the London School of Economics (LSE) which was intended to train up activists, bureaucrats, politicians for the revolution. Ellis comments:

So here we have a socialist-capitalist alliance whereby Big Business elites utilise socialist institutions to nurture their own aims. This obviously begs a particular question: Why do major capitalists and international finance organizations want to train the bureaucracy for the creation of a future socialist state? Isn’t socialism, in its very essence, antithetical to capitalism? H.G. Wells explained this apparent paradox in 1920: “Big Business is in no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.”

Ellis adds that it became the strategy of Fabian socialism to “prefer wealthy elites (intellectual, political, economic) rather than the proletariat (working class) as the source of revolutionary potential.” By 1945, the Fabian Society had taken over the British House of Commons, since more than half of the ruling Labour party’s MPs were paid-up Fabians. The same trends are prominent today, most notably in the example of the Fabian Tony Blair, whose Labour Party during his decade of power (1997–2007) ushered in the biggest ever acceleration of immigration to Britain, and who maintains strong links to Jewish international finance in the form of his close friend and ally Moshe Kantor.

Ellis has a very interesting section demonstrating organic links between the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School, especially in their early stages, and cross-pollination of ideas between British and German socialists. There are clear parallels in the way both groupings set about their destructive tasks with the tactic of gradual infiltration. Permeation, or “honeycombing,” of existing institutions with committed activists and intellectuals was the preferred methodology of bringing about large-scale societal change, and both groupings eschewed the notion of the working class as a viable source for revolutionary socialism. Ellis lists the “products” of Fabian and Frankfurt School activism as:

feminism; affirmative action; deconstruction; the transformation of the traditional family, church, education, and morals; Third-World opposition movements; anti-nationalism; cultural contempt; anti-discrimination; liberal immigration reforms; ‘White Privilege;’ White Guilt; “Diversity is Strength”; ‘tolerance’; Political Correctness; and multiculturalism.

The dramatic changes witnessed in Western society over the last 70 years have been, argues Ellis, wrought by the activity of a “New Class” composed of university-educated, liberal, cosmopolitans who have gained support from financial elites, thus increasing their social capital and expanding their capacity for political action. Both Fabianism and the Frankfurt School are

elite forms of socialism, whether in intellectual political, cultural, or economic terms, as they no longer focus on the working classes. They are bourgeois revolutionary theories that instigate revolutions from above, not below; they are not grassroots or democratic; they are plutocratic, oligarchic, and dictatorial. These socialist intellectuals ‘march through the institutions’ to effect a ‘gradual’ revolution from above and are sponsored by the capitalist forces they supposedly oppose.

The third section of part I, “International and Geopolitical Developments,” is one of the more factually dense elements of the book, but is worth persevering with. The chapter highlights the ways in which early diplomatic support for Israel (led by the United States and Britain) brought Europe into conflict with oil producers in the Middle East, necessitating not only closer economic ties within Europe but also sowing the seeds for the future Islamization of the continent. Ellis dissects the ways in which American imperialism, international finance, and monopoly capitalism influenced post-war European diplomacy and economic recovery strategies (mainly the importation of supposedly “temporary” foreign labor), and links it to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the creation of global institutions like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and NATO — all of which “influenced the opening of Europe and Western nations to non-European immigration from the Third World.”

By a small margin, I found Part II to be more interesting than the first. It’s comprised of a very ambitious survey of the origins and trajectory of all the contemporary ideological currents underpinning the European Union we see today. There are no less than eleven small chapters critically exploring the evolution of cosmopolitanism (including Kantian, proletarian, critical, universal, liberal and pluralistic variants). The text then moves to a three-chapter exploration liberalism, before ending with a three-chapter exploration of conservatism, including a critique of neoconservatism.

I found Ellis’s treatment of the origins of cosmopolitanism to be very interesting, though I felt that something important had been missed in the absence of any mention that Kant had obviously been influenced in his attitudes to tolerance and cosmopolitanism by Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), the Jewish intellectual activist most responsible for initiating pluralism, multiculturalism, and even “open borders” as political ideologies in Europe. As one scholar has remarked, “there is every indication that Kant read everything Mendelssohn wrote,” and the pair often exchanged letters and books.[2] In other words, Mendelssohn was, in a form of intellectual parasitism or symbiosis, the “Zangwill” to Kant’s “UDC”. Ellis may have been helped to improve this already excellent section with at least some reference to Mendelssohn and the ideologies of his co-ethnics among the maskilim, or even with some information from Cathy Gelbin and Sander Gilman’s 2017 Cosmopolitanisms and the Jews. The latter is, given its authors, far from perfect, but is a good introduction to the ways in which Jews have gone about promoting cosmopolitanism and its offshoots in European society for the last three centuries. In making such a suggestion I am, perhaps, playing to my own strengths, but I nevertheless feel that the Jewish influence in the origins of the most pernicious elements of this strain of thought merits at least some attention in a book like The Blackening of Europe. Jewish influence in modern cosmopolitan theories is, of course, treated in Ellis’s analysis of the thought of Martha Nussbaum, who “advocates world citizenship and internationalism” and “criticised patriotic pride.”

The result of centuries of cosmopolitan thought is devastating:

Identity for Europeans is [today] about legal proceedings, universal abstractions, and individual interests rather than substantial and meaningful bonds that are in the interests of a community of people united by ancestral, cultural, and other ties. … The majority population lose their particular ethnocultural identity in their accommodation of all other ethnocultural identities in a pluralistic and ethnically diverse constitutional liberal democracy. European majorities do not even become a minority amongst other minorities with the right to self-determination, for what determines their identity is solely in terms of rational universal rights and legal procedures; they have a post-national identity only. … It is clear that many cosmopolitanists perceive all European-based countries of the world and, by extension, all European peoples, to be guilty of something or other: Nazism, colonialism, slavery, Eurocentrism or Westerncentrism, global capitalism, being White etc. It is through this narrative that the radical transformation of European societies and European peoples to align with the dictates of some form of cosmopolitanism is justified.

Ellis’s treatment of cosmopolitanism ends with an extremely interesting profile of the modern-day cosmopolitan class, including reflections on their mental health. They are composed of

wealthy and influential elites who are either neoliberals motivated by global capitalism, or else some form of socialist (Leftist, cultural Marxists) motivated by universal values and societal transformation, or they are both neoliberal and socialist: a socialist-capitalist alliance. In either case, their primary identity is global or cosmopolitan, which is completely independent from geography, nation, ethnicity, or religion, and they seek to change the world according to their elite visions and ideals of humanity, the future, and the global economy.

I concur with all the above, my only caveat being that there’s an obvious exception to this rule and that’s “the Jewish cosmopolitan,” who can be socialist-capitalist while maintaining an intense attachment to geography and nation (Israel), ethnicity (Jewishness), and religion (Judaism). One need only look at figures like Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Moshe Kantor, along with the vast majority of the Jewish Big Tech CEOs, hedge fund bosses, bankers, media barons, consumer culture despots, and loan merchants, etc., to see that this is plainly and inarguably the case. What we therefore see in the ongoing story of European cosmopolitanism is the confluence of two separate strains of activism — the generally well-meaning European variant peopled by Kant, the UDC, and some of the non-Jewish utopians; and the Jewish one featuring Mendelssohn, the Frankfurt School, and Jewish Capital. It is the latter that has attached itself to the former, perverting and distorting its vision for their own ends. The present-day European Union is the disfigured and defective offspring of this sinister congress.

Ellis’s analysis of the mental health of the average member of the cosmopolitan elite is excellent. Her assertion that they “have a combined sense of intellectual superiority, moral arrogance, and existential insecurity, often involving fear of ‘natural groups,’” couldn’t be more aptly applied to Jewish activists. One is also reminded of the infamous 2010 confrontation between the Fabian British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Gillian Duffy, one of his own voters. Duffy had mentioned a lack of jobs in the context of ongoing mass immigration, prompting Brown to quickly abandon the exchange and get into a departing car. Unaware that his microphone was still on, a horrified Brown was recorded by the media talking to his aides: “That was a disaster—they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? Ridiculous!” Asked what she had said, he replied: “Everything, she was just a bigoted woman.” The cosmopolitan elite in a nutshell — fleeing from reality and full of moral and dehumanizing condemnations of those members of the “natural group” who dissent.

The book’s treatment of Liberalism and Conservatism is equally masterful, and includes a powerful critique of neoconservatism that includes references to, and quotes from, such figures as Sam Francis. It sets the stage nicely for Volume II of the trilogy, which will deal exclusively with the aftermath of Zionist neocon wars in the Middle East, in the form of mass migration and the acceleration of the Islamization of Europe. The volume concludes with an Afterword offering a summary of findings, and a helpful guide to what can be expected in Volumes II (Immigration, Islam and the Migrant Crisis) and III (Critical Views) of the trilogy.

Clare Ellis is to be commended for producing what is sure to be the definitive work on the co-option of the European unity project from its beginning by hostile forces, and for setting down for all time one of the clearest records yet written of the ideological, financial, political, and ethnic interests behind them.

[1] S. Kadish, Bolsheviks and British Jews: The Anglo-Jewish Community, Britain and the Russian Revolution (Frank Cass, 1992), 62.

[2] J. Schmidt, Kant’s Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 75.

Foreword to Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism by Brenton Sanderson

Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism”
By Brenton Sanderson
Paperback (558 pages) available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Book Depository, AbeBooks, Alibris, and Indiebound
EBook available at Kobo

FOREWORD by Kevin MacDonald

Brenton Sanderson began writing for The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly in 2011. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of his work from the beginning – his first essays were on the “War on White Australia” which I am happy to learn will be coming out in a separate, much anticipated, volume.

As an editor, one quickly learns to appreciate essays that are well-researched and well-written, and Sanderson’s work has always been up to the highest standard. Each of these essays is a gem. The general theme of Battle Lines is the difficult question of Jewish influence – difficult at least partly because the literature is littered with apologetic writings, so that getting a firm grasp on such a topic requires great persistence and honesty. As he writes in the Introduction, “The Jewish Question is foundational to the demographic transformation of the West, the revolution in its sexual and ethical mores, and to the trajectory of Western politics, art and culture.” We can’t avoid talking about it if we want to be honest about what is happening. But doing so is a thankless task, a reason for being scorned and ostracized, fired from one’s job, barred from influential positions in the media and academic world. Sanderson quotes Richard Wagner writing in the nineteenth century, “It is distressing to me always to come back to the theme of the Jews. But one cannot escape it if one looks to the future.”

And 150 years after Wagner’s statement, it is still absolutely true. We simply can’t avoid discussing the Jews. Honest discussions of Jewish influence are absolutely necessary if White people are going to have a future.

Much of Sanderson’s work has been on Jewish influence on culture, particularly in the arts and the media. These are major contributions. Beginning in the early twentieth century Jews have had enormous influence on the visual arts as artists, critics, dealers, and collectors. In 1973 Sophy Burnham published The Art Crowd, estimating that 80 per cent of the 2,500 core “art market personnel” – dealers, curators, gallery owners, collectors, critics, consultants and patrons of the arts – were Jewish.[i]

So it’s not surprising that Jewish attitudes would be reflected in what counts as fine art and whose work gets promoted. As Sanderson notes in his essay on Tristan Tzara and the Dada movement, there was a “Jewish intellectual substructure of many of these twentieth century art movements… manifest in their unfailing hostility toward the political, cultural and religious traditions of Europe and European-derived societies.”

Given this reality, it is not difficult to envision Jewish critics championing Jewish artists or non-Jews like Jackson Pollock whose work can be seen as advancing this hostility toward the culture of the West. Nor is it difficult to imagine Jewish art dealers promoting such artists (e.g., Sidney Janis promoting Mark Rothko [Chapter 9] whose fame had nothing to do with any recognizable talent but was inextricably linked to his being a member of a Jewish sub-culture). The same goes for Jewish art museum curators (e.g., Katherine Kuh promoting Rothko), Jewish collectors (e.g., Charles Saatchi promoting Damien Hirst), and Jewish critics (Clement Greenberg promoting Jackson Pollock).

Gustav Mahler and Leonard Bernstein were doubtless very talented musicians and composers. However, their elevation to the status of cultural icons cannot be explained by talent alone. Once again Sanderson documents a coterie of Jews promoting these figures, including Bernstein promoting Mahler. Bernstein in particular has always fascinated me because of his flamboyant personality and style. Sanderson notes that his fame rivaled that of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe. Even I, who was not particularly drawn to classical music at the time, was quite aware of him and recall being struck by his impassioned performances as a conductor. The issue of Jewish personality is relatively unexplored, but it seems that Jews often have extreme personalities – personalities that make people stand out in whatever their field of endeavor, with Bernstein being a prime example. In my first book on Jews, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, I summarized data indicating that, on average, Jews rated highly on all the personality systems.

And while Jews have been able to promote certain individuals to the status of cultural icon, they have also attempted to tear down others, Richard Wagner being the most prominent example. In the case of Wagner, his towering musical genius presents a major obstacle in this endeavor, but there can be little doubt that there has been a campaign against Wagner waged by Jewish music critics and producers. Sanderson provides an amazing quote from Bernstein, “‘I hate Wagner, but I hate him on my knees’ – a grudging acknowledgement of the scale of German composer’s achievement.” Despite his prodigious talent, Wagner is now routinely labeled a “deeply pathological personality” – a common description by Jews eagerly seeking out any flaw in a person they dislike for deeper reasons. The result has been that performances of Wagnerian works like The Ring “in the modern era have invariably sought to satirize the drama to subvert the message Wagner attempts to convey.” If they can’t ban him outright because the music is too powerful, they can nip at the edges with satire and false messaging.

Another aspect of Jewish influence on culture has been the sexual revolution. In writing The Culture of Critique I always thought of the chapter on Freud as pivotal for understanding what had happened since the 1960s. Freud’s war on sexual and family mores has had vastly more devastating effects on people at the lower end of the IQ distribution than the solidly middle class or upper class. Those at the lower end of the IQ distribution benefit more from the social supports embedded in religion and traditional culture, but these have essentially been destroyed since the 1960s. Since then, all the markers of family function have declined precipitously, including increases in divorce, lower rates of marriage, births out of wedlock, and single parenting – all of which are linked to negative effects on children and all more common in people of lower socioeconomic status. In recent decades this has been exacerbated by drug abuse, especially opioid abuse, which is again more common among people on the lower rungs of society.

Here Sanderson emphasizes how the ongoing sexual revolution, originated by a vastly disproportionate number of Jewish intellectuals, has filtered into the entertainment industry, focusing on the work of Jenji Kohan (Orange is the New Black) and Jill Soloway (Transparent). When I was growing up in the 1950s, religious and patriotic groups exercised significant power over the content of movies and television. Marriage and having children were generally depicted as rewarding life choices, and all the psychological research indicates that traditional married families are indeed more likely to result in well-adjusted children.

However, such families are a vanishing breed in the Western media landscape, replaced by shows presenting divorced families, single parenting, and homosexual and transgender relationships as normal and fulfilling. Both Kohan and Soloway are strongly identified Jews (Kohan wanted to become a rabbi and Soloway said that Jews in Hollywood are “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust”). Their careers have taken place completely within a Jewish milieu – a good indication of the fundamentally Jewish nature of the entertainment industry. A non-Jew wishing to have a career in the industry could not possibly produce, write, or direct anything that offends Jewish sensibilities.

Another important theme in Battle Lines is Jewish apologia for the crimes of communism, a topic that must remain suppressed “regardless of how many historians (Jewish and non-Jewish) confirm the decisive role Jews played in providing the ideological basis for, and the establishment, governance and administration of, the former communist dictatorships of Central and Eastern Europe.” Daniel Goldhagen is typical of those Jews who want to totally suppress this history, asserting that any linking of Jews with communism is a “calumny.” However, Sanderson provides extensive reviews of two books by Jewish authors with a different slant – that yes, Jews were decisive, but whatever they did was justified by anti-Semitism. For example, the much-exaggerated pogroms of the late nineteenth century are used to justify the murder of millions and the oppressive police states, and Jews are absolved from any role in triggering the anti-Jewish attitudes widely felt by the peoples of Eastern and Central Europe. This is outright falsification of history. And as Sanderson notes,

Free discussion of the Jewish role in communist crimes undermines Jewish pretensions to moral authority grounded in their self-designated status as history’s preeminent victims. In contemporary academia there are, in addition, strong personal and professional disincentives for highlighting the Jewish role in communist crimes, and it is, therefore, not surprising that non-Jewish historians and intellectuals are equally reluctant to recognize the Jewish backgrounds of many revolutionaries and to explore how their Jewish identity influenced their beliefs and actions. The Jewish-controlled media organs in the U.S. have conditioned most Americans to suffer a sort of mental allergic reaction to topics sensitive to Jews.

This is an excellent general description of all topics related to Jewish influence. Jews are ethnically motivated to see themselves in a positive light, while non-Jews rightly fear their careers in academia, the media, or politics will be jeopardized if they honestly and openly discuss the impact of Jews on Western societies. The result is a plethora of glaring omissions, and disingenuous analyses often accompanied by a maudlin philo-Semitism.

The reasons White academics or journalists produce this drivel are easy to understand. Such endeavors are massively incentivized, whether by obtaining tenure in the university system or getting a position in the elite media or politics. The message from our latter-day commissars is clear: “Sell out and we’ll make you a star.” Brenton Sanderson has not sold out. These essays offer excellent scholarship, clear writing, and most of all, honesty – a rare trait indeed in the contemporary West.

[i] Sophy Burnham, The Art Crowd (Philadelphia: David McKay Publications, 1973), 25.

The Dirty Secret: Thoughts on Being a Mischling

Although I’ve had no love for Jews for most of my life, I am ashamed of the amount of time it took for me to accept that those who are vocally opposed to Jewish influence have legitimate grievances. I had always found myself at odds with social and political phenomena that can ultimately be traced back to that influence, but I had never really understood where they came from. My objections to pornography, sex trafficking, and the hypersexualization of women and children in advertising and entertainment were wrongly directed against men in general. My awareness of grave injustices and smokescreens such as 9/11 laid blame at the feet of an entirely faceless global enemy.

It also took longer than I might have hoped to recognize that what I love about humanity — my sense of beauty and aesthetics, musical preferences, values, appreciation for Western architecture, respect for animals, dress, culture, history, literature — the poetry of life — must ultimately all be credited to Europe and her peoples. I now understand that the corruption and subversion of those things close to my heart has largely been the result of external influence and values that are not only foreign but largely antithetical to those of the European tradition.

Slowly, I learned that the enemy is not faceless.

I had believed that people largely hated Jews for their ability to preserve tradition for many thousands of years and for their strong group identity. It took someone explaining to me very politely how others see plainly anti-social Jewish behaviors and in-group preference for me to really understand the animosity some hold against Jews.

But the Jewish question for me is more nuanced than it would be for most people. Growing up in a heavily-Jewish community, most of my friends and teachers were secular Jews. However, I was always aware on a fundamental level that I did not really belong in their world, and rejected it fully by the time I was 12.

I knew I was only half Jewish — a “Mischling.” I knew this because it was obvious that my mother was Jewish and my father was not.

My grandparents had been founding members of their synagogue, but my parents were not allowed to get married there because my father was not of the faith. We celebrated both Christmas and Hannukah when I was a child (the food is a lot better at Christmas) but not Easter. From pre-school to first grade, I attended a Jewish private school where I was taught to revere Israel and encouraged to raise money for it UNICEF-style, as well as spending half the day learning about Jewish culture and reading/singing in Hebrew. From second grade through the end of middle school, I attended public schools comprised mainly of Ashkenazi children. To compensate, my mother made me go to “Hebrew School” three times a week. Hebrew School was an after-school program where Ashkenazi children could learn prayers, Hebrew, and the Torah. (The children in my Hebrew School were most likely attending public schools as well. The more serious orthodox and Hasidic Jews attended private and “Talmudic schools” for the entire duration of their schooling.)

As far as I know, I was always accepted as Jewish, even though I was technically only half. My childhood best friend, an adopted girl with blonde hair and blue eyes whom I met at our private school, was also (from what I remember, being six years old) accepted as Jewish, even though she was not Ashkenazi or any other type of Jew. No one really asked questions. She was far from the only blonde kid there either.

I learned more recently that the act of saying something to try to find out whether someone is Jewish (or drop the hint that you are) is called “bageling.” Once a “bageler” finds out you are Jewish, they seem to light up. You suddenly have something in common. It doesn’t seem to matter if you are half, one quarter, one eighth Jewish — what is important is that you have that component of your identity.

The only one who plays the “Jewish or not Jewish?” game more than “anti-Semites” is my own mother.

As for me, I rejected that component of my identity early on. At the age of 11, I refused to go to Hebrew School any longer. They graduated me early along with that year’s class to avoid shaming my family. I was never Bat Mitzvahed (Jewish rite of passage done at age 12 for girls and 13 for boys.) When it came time for high school, I made a conscious decision to leave the area and went to a decidedly-not-Jewish school in another town that had a magnet program. Suddenly, with few exceptions, none of my friends, teachers, and classmates were Jewish, and I was a-OK with that.

In the early 2000s, my siblings visited Israel on free “Birthright” trips which were available to any Jewish person under the age of 25 who could show that they are at least semi-serious about being Jewish. I had exactly no interest whatsoever in going, and found the idea of living in a desert repulsive even in first grade (my teacher was telling us we would all live there one day.)

Although my ancestry would still technically allow me Israeli citizenship, I was recently called a “shiksa” by a full-blooded left-wing Jew. He seemed to go out of his way to get it in — as if he wanted to be sure I knew he did not accept my Jewishness. I have been called a “fake” or “self-hating Jew” more than once for casting doubt on the holocaust narrative, as well as for scoffing at Jewish holidays and traditions. My beliefs and experiences as someone with Jewish heritage are readily discounted by anyone who finds them inconvenient — unless they are on the right, in which case my Jewish background is often treated as the only thing about me of any real significance — especially if I have upset them somehow.

Most people, even those who are critical of Jews in general, don’t make a big deal about my Jewish heritage if we are talking one-on-one. You might be surprised at the number of blatant “Nazis” I have dated or who have hit on me. I have some very close friends who have had the honor of being mentioned by the SPLC and ADL. But things are always different in a group setting. I was recently rejected whole cloth by a Telegram group called “Alt Skulls’ Charnel House.” I specifically joined this group because I had read an article which discussed the creator’s own Jewish heritage. Yet, someone accused me of having a Jewish name (first I am hearing of this!), and when I answered them honestly, I was immediately banned from the group.

While many think I am decent and attractive enough to be considered an honorable person at least in private, others will stop talking to me when I am honest about my background. I was dismissed and told once I was an “ancient enemy of [the White] race.” Barbara Spectre and countless other Jews are enemies, surely, but I am not. I am an ally. Why would this individual want me on the wrong side?

What prompted me to write this piece was an exchange I had with someone I met through NatConnect. When I mentioned I was half Jewish, I received a response that was almost hysterical, criticizing me for “announcing” that I was Jewish (would they prefer I kept it a secret?) and demanding I disavow White genocide, which I did without reservation. But that wasn’t enough. When I told this person that, while I feel it is important to be honest about my background and that I ultimately consider myself White, I was given an exhaustive list of news articles about how Ashkenazim say they aren’t White and how their DNA is unique, et cetera, et cetera. But that’s a topic for another day.

I do strongly disavow what has been done by Jews and in the name of Jews. That said, I don’t believe in collective guilt. I don’t believe that lay Jews are responsible for the actions of elite Jews any more than I believe that White people are responsible on the whole for “racism” or “colonialism,” although it is more than fair to identify certain phenomenon as having Jewish origins or being Jewish in nature.

I know from my own experience that run-of-the-mill Jews believe all the same lies as everyone else, but view them from a different perspective. Although there are very disturbing patterns indeed, there does not seem to be, for most people from my experience, an articulated conspiracy that is shared by your average Jew. You will have to trust me when I say that most of the elite Jews who are orchestrating subversion are not the same ones studying the Talmud.

No, I’d argue that the cohesion of Jews lies in a sense of otherness and a victimization narrative that is found throughout Jewish tradition and history. It seems particularly important looking back on my early education, for example, that I feel hated and persecuted by a world out for my blood.

At the age of four or five, speakers were already coming to school to talk to us about the “holocaust” and we were shown movies about it. We learned the story of Haman (the Persian official who wanted to exterminate or expel the Jews of Persia for nO rEaSoN wHaTsOeVeR) every year around Purim and drowned out his name with noisemakers during services. We repeated endlessly the story of “our” slavery in Egypt, our persecution throughout the world, the destruction of our temples in Jerusalem, and we lamented the loss of our holy city.

As a child, I was taken by teachers to holocaust museums and even to a Matzo factory that had a portrait of a rabbi with horns on the wall, where it was explained to us that people had once believed Jews had horns.

Why did they feel it was necessary for a young child to see such things? I would propose that the reason is that they found it important, first and foremost, for us little Jewish children to feel hated, rejected, and despised by the world.

Unsurprisingly, I’ve experienced a lot more hostility for being White than for being Jewish. I was lucky enough to get my facial features, skin color, and hair texture from my father’s side. No one has ever been able to identify my cute button nose as Jewish without me specifically telling them about my Litvak mom. I have always found it particularly important that I do tell them in these circles, as I would hate to be misunderstood as someone attempting to infiltrate or subvert the pro-White movement. I am gradually forcing myself to be more reserved on that front.

But I am not alone. I know many others, including full-blooded Ashkenazi and even Sephardic Jews, who are not only pro-White but are “red-pilled on the JQ.”  Even they do not receive any reprieve from the social monitors for going against the grain on the basis of our cultural or racial background.

It is true that we could have, but reject, the possible benefits of a Jewish identity — at the cost of rejecting the truth and our own fundamental values.

Despite identifying strongly with Europe and her peoples, I understand that I will never be fully accepted by some of those most like me ideologically or politically based on circumstances outside of my control. It doesn’t seem to resonate that mischling, having been differentiated from full-blooded Jews (who were assumed by the Third Reich to be Communists), fought and died in the Wehrmacht or worked for Adolf Hitler himself — any taint of Jewish heritage is not to be tolerated by a large segment of the far right.

And I am not asking for tolerance. I am not asking for an exception to be made especially for me. I am asking for nuance and sophistication of thought that allows for an individual of any racial or ethnic group not to be assigned the weight of the actions of other members of said group, while respecting obvious patterns and taking proper precautions.

I reject the idea that my father’s Germanic and Anglo-Saxon ancestors were evil. But I also reject the idea that my mother’s ancestors, whose lineage can be traced largely to converts from Ancient Rome, and who lived simply in poor villages in Lithuania and Russia until the late nineteenth century, were inherently bad or evil. They were, and my family continues to be, a far cry from George Soros or any Rothschild.

Casting aspersions on anyone with as much as a drop of Jewish blood is a mistake. We are at war for the future Greater Europe. Jewish people have the propensity to be exceptionally bright and resourceful. Most are not on our side, but for those who are — can’t we use that? I often feel as if there is a campaign on both sides pressuring me to place undue importance on my Jewish heritage and to identify as Jewish first, when it’s not even in my top ten.

Ultimately, does it not serve the interests of elite Jews and bolster the narratives of victimization and otherness to paint anyone with Jewish heritage, no matter how White they otherwise are, and no matter what they value or believe, into a corner? It certainly presents a roadblock to full assimilation.

O nacionalismo branco e os seus inimigos esquerdistas

A retrógrada esquerda venceu as guerras culturais nos Estados Unidos. Não há dúvida quanto a isso. Até mesmo a “direita” da mídia, do estabilismo (não confundir com a direita clássica ou tradicionalista) já foi cooptada pela esquerda. Juntas, a esquerda e essa “direita” formam o estabilismo americano de esquerda. Apesar de sua extravasante influência sobre a sociedade e a cultura americanas, o estabilismo não se larga do nacionalismo branco, não o considera cacareco velho como um cilindro fonográfico ou gramofone. Em vez disso, a esquerda conserva o nacionalismo branco enquanto objeto de seu ódio intenso e incendiário.

Mas será que haveria algum mérito na reação do estabilismo ante o nacionalismo branco? Pesquisas focando a atitude racial da população branca dão conta de que os nacionalistas brancos não passam de 5% da população americana; eles podem até ser menos do que 1%. Eles não controlam nenhuma grande corporação ou organização política. Odiados e perseguidos pelo estabelecimento, não surpreende que aos nacionalistas brancos falte maior domínio econômico e político.

Dada a pretensão que tem o estabilismo americano de ignorar os direitos inscritos na Primeira Emenda, os nacionalistas brancos encontram-se sob acosso, tendo contra si uma combinação de medidas legais e econômicas. O tratamento dispensado aos “expressores do ódio” inclui demissão do emprego, bloqueio de acesso à mundirrede, censura à literatura nacionalista branca y otras cositas más. Em contraste, seus oponentes antifas e belemistas [BLM] não sofrem nenhuma restrição da parte do Estado. Eles são bem mais organizados, bem mais patrocinados e bem mais capazes de mobilizar as massas de seus seguidores. O Antifas e o BLM podem despedaçar monumentos históricos dos Estados Unidos, podem transformar seis quadras no centro de Seattle numa “Zona Autônoma” fechada à polícia, na maior impunidade. Será que se dissidentes raciais tivessem tomado o centro de Seattle, fazendo dele um enclave branco fechado à polícia, eles também seriam tratados com luvas de pelica? A hipocrisia dá nojo, mas não surpreende, vinda de onde veio.

Uma ínfima percentagem de brancos chama a si toda a atenção de todo o estabilismo esquerdista. Como é que pode? Quase diariamente a mídia propaga de forma exagerada, ou até mesmo completamente falsa, histórias sobre terrorismo nacionalista branco e repentes de violência branca. A intensa preocupação dos esquerdistas com o nacionalismo branco parece irracional, mas de ponto de vista estratégico faz sentido.

Sabe-se que os dissidentes raciais são as pessoas mais odiadas nos Estados Unidos. Afinal, o nacionalismo branco e o marxismo cultural são ideologias concorrentes; entretanto, no mercado das ideias, as pessoas dão de barato a crença de que nem todas as ideias nascem iguais. O argumento do nacionalismo branco contra a diversidade — ao contrário da alegação do esquerdismo pela diversidade, é inatacável. Desde a ascensão do marxismo cultural na política americana, nunca os esquerdistas foram capazes de elaborar argumento procedente em favor da diversidade.

Os esquerdistas execram e temem a consciência racial branca, por isso é que eles quase nunca debatem com dissidentes raciais na televisão ou na imprensa, senão da forma mais superficial. Num estado de subconsciência, os esquerdistas têm medo do nacionalismo branco, porque acreditam que ele levaria muitos brancos a abandonar o sacralizado projeto multicultural, tão turibulado pela esquerda. Vemos claramente que não se nos depara nenhuma ideologia política racional, senão teocracia secular guiada pela mística de um credo igualitário. Nas “igrejas” do esquerdismo, a fé toma o lugar da razão enquanto árbitro supremo da verdade. Este é o calcanhar de Aquiles do estabilismo esquerdista e deve ser explorado pelos dissidentes raciais, com o que conseguiriam muitas vantagens.

As evidências depõem contra a diversidade e mostram por que o estabilismo é patologicamente leucofóbico. Os nacionalistas brancos já denunciaram a imigração massiva de não brancos como a religião de facto das elites esquerdistas. Os defensores brancos deixaram patente que a imigração tem por efeito a redução de salários, a queda da taxa de fertilidade e a elevação do custo da habitação. O mesmo é dizer que a imigração alógena resulta no desterro racial do branco. A cada ano, mais as cidades americanas vão se parecendo com aquelas da África e do México, com alguns bolsões asiáticos. A imigração massiva, especialmente daquele tipo que tem desgraçado os Estados Unidos desde 1965, é preço terrível a pagar pela comida estrangeira, ou por qualquer outra coisa trazida pela diversidade, supostamente para o nosso “enriquecimento cultural”.

Para além dos estereótipos e chavões com que são louvadas as virtudes da diversidade, o estabilismo não tem nenhuma resposta séria a dar ao problema racial, à questão da desigualdade racial, inclusive quanto à inteligência. A apologia esquerdista só oferece razões de fé em favor da igualdade e dos supostos benefícios da imigração do Terceiro Mundo. “Diversidade é força!”, a mais popular dessas razões, é lema místico que não difere do orwelliano “Liberdade é escravidão!” ou “Ignorância é força!”. Comparado com a série de platitudes vazias do multiculturalismo, o argumento nacionalista branco em defesa da autodeterminação branca parece revestido de ferro. Por tal razão, o estabilismo determinou a proscrição do nacionalismo branco.

Como George Orwell (alegadamente) disse: “Falar a verdade quando prevalece a fraude é ato revolucionário”.

As lições de Orwell no 1984

O ódio e a perseguição esquerdistas ao nacionalismo branco cumpre a mesma função que o evento dos “Dois minutos de ódio”, narrado no 1984, de Orwell. [N. do trad.: no episódio citado, a multidão era reunida numa praça para vaiar e xingar o “inimigo”, cuja imagem aparecia numa grande tela.] Emmanuel Goldstein, que defectou da direção do partido para abraçar a organização contrarrevolucionária “Fraternidade”, é a figura que inspira os “Dois minutos de ódio”. Sempre que a imagem de Goldstein era mostrada nos monitores omnipresentes na Oceania, a multidão parava tudo para externar o seu ódio coletivo contra o inimigo ideológico jurado do Grande Irmão.

O sentido dos Dois minutos de ódio consiste em tomar a direção da mente das pessoas para desviar sua atenção do partido e suas falhas, dirigindo a raiva de sua insatisfação para algum único alvo exterior, de sorte que o sentimento negativo deixa de ter por objeto o governo para incidir sobre os inimigos do governo. A demonização a que o partido submete Goldstein é advertência dirigida à população da Oceania. Aqueles que desafiam as determinações do partido serão expulsos de seus quadros e, na novilíngua orwelliana, despersonalizados. O ódio que os esquerdistas sentem dos dissidentes raciais atende a objetivo utilitário bastante similar. Ele impõe a conformidade ideológica, significando ainda advertência quanto aos perigos reservados àqueles que desrespeitam o estado de coisas vigente. O risco de se ver relegado à margem da sociedade, a possibilidade de sua transformação em párias despojados de meios de vida, isso é perspectiva aterradora para o proletariado.

A versão dos Dois minutos de ódio do progressismo contribui para maior unidade entre os esquerdistas e reforça seu devotamento aos ideais de esquerda, assegurando a continuidade do serviço que prestam para a manutenção do status quo. Dessa forma, os esquerdistas tentam apassivar os mais ingênuos entre os brancos, fazendo-os acreditar que neonazistas, fascistas e quejandos são a causa verdadeira de seus problemas, assim livrando de culpa as elites, que importam milhões de não brancos, enquanto exportam milhões dos mais bem remunerados empregos industriais para o Terceiro Mundo.

Enquanto objeto de ódio, o nacionalismo branco mostra-se bode expiatório bastante conveniente, a exemplo da personagem Goldstein no livro de Orwell. Não é difícil entender o porquê disso. Ocorre que o nacionalismo branco resiste como o último bastião da razão e do bom senso em meio ao oceano de irracionalidade e obscurantismo do progressismo. Tudo o que representa a dissidência racial é anátema para o progressismo. Os dissidentes recusam-se a desaparecer juntamente com a sua raça pelos “pecados” da escravidão africana, do “genocídio” ameríndio e do colonialismo europeu, por isso não aceitam o papel de vítima sacrificial a ser sacrificada como um Cristo, destino que lhes tenta impor o estabilismo.

A forte correlação entre a democracia totalitária e a visão distópica de Orwell é flagrante. Decerto Orwell terá sido quem melhor entendeu a psicologia do totalitarismo de esquerda. Isso pode explicar o porquê da confirmação de muito do que ele previra, ao contrário do que se passou com as previsões relativamente mais benignas de seu contemporâneo Aldous Huxley.

O nigriesquerdo contra o branco: polarização atitudinal?

Na visão maniqueísta do estabilismo, o esquerdismo representa força do bem; e o nacionalismo branco, uma força do mal. Por meio da condenação da consciência racial branca, o esquerdista, motivado em parte pelo ressentimento, denigre as virtudes características das sociedades indo-arianas — o orgulho, a força, o autodomínio, o individualismo, a objetividade — como males morais, ao tempo que exalta as virtudes da moralidade judaico-cristã do escravo — a humildade, a fraqueza, a igualdade — elevando-as a posição de supremacia. Daí o conceito nietzschiano de transvaloração de todos os valores, com o qual o filósofo reagiu à grande inversão que fez do bem o mal; e do mal, o bem.

A estereotipagem negativa, irracional dos dissidentes raciais por parte do estabilismo dimana de seu maniqueísmo e “justifica” o ódio devotado ao nacionalismo branco, não apenas entre esquerdistas, mas também entre o público em geral. Igualado o estabilismo ao bem e o nacionalismo branco ao mal, chega-se à injusta caricatura do dissidente racial como um casca-grossa do mato desdentado ou um brutamontes neonazista, propenso à violência criminosa, como os estereótipos andantes e falantes vistos no filme American History X [no Brasil: A outra história americana]. A intenção por trás dessa estereotipagem irracional tão prezada na esquerda é desumanizar e reduzir a uma insignificância patética o que não pode ser refutado mediante argumentação racional. Com efeito, a mídia sob controle judeu e as organizações de direitos civis, entre as quais hollywood e a SPLC [sigla inglesa: Southern Poverty Law Center: trata-se de organização supremacista judaica antibranca] continuam irracionalmente a estereotipar a dissidência racial como movimento de neonazistas e klanistas [membros da Ku Klux Klan].

Essa demonização dos dissidentes raciais brancos reflete ânimo ainda mais profundamente adverso à direita tradicional. Os dissidentes raciais ameaçam o projeto multicultural do estabilismo em suas fundações, se não literalmente, ao menos ideologicamente. No mundo do esquerdismo, a transformação etnográfica do país [EE.UU.] é exigência inegociável; os esquerdistas não podem se alijar dela sem comprometer todo o seu sistema de crenças. Enquanto ideologia capaz de tudo destruir, carregada de ódio racial do branco psicótico contra si mesmo, o esquerdismo perderia sua raison d’être, se dele fosse subtraído o objetivo de minorizar, substituir, alterizar e finalmente suprimir a raça branca, forma de genocídio vista como solução final para o “problema” da branquidão. O ódio racial de si mesmo é o que leva o esquerdista branco a buscar na imigração massiva de não brancos a satisfação de necessidades próprias, o mesmo é dizer, mais precisamente, que o esquerdista branco depende psicologicamente da imigração alógena para seu bem-estar geral, como se a desterritorialização de si mesmo fosse alguma droga muito viciante, muito poderosa.

Dada a profundidade do auto-ódio racial branco, parece que só uma catástrofe natural poderia descarrilar os planos de minorização da maioria nos Estados Unidos até por volta de 2040. Nós já vimos como foi preciso a Covid-19 para que as fronteiras fossem fechadas e, gradativamente, suspenso o tráfego aéreo. Dá até arrepio só de pensar no que poderia levar os Estados Unidos a cancelar seu programa de imigração massiva de forma definitiva. Seria uma devastadora guerra racial? Talvez uma severa depressão econômica que deixasse sem emprego a maioria dos americanos? Ou uma peste que matasse metade da população americana?

Se nenhuma dessas possibilidades, então o quê? Quem sabe o choque de um asteroide contra a Terra? Para os esquerdistas, é “tudo ou nada”: ou o Ocidente torna-se diverso, ou desaparece no nada.

A loucura do estabilismo esquerdista aparentemente não tem limite.

O nacionalismo branco sobreviverá ao estabilismo esquerdista americano?

A decadência do Império Americano não se parece com a de outros. Tomemos o caso de Roma. Desde o caos do terceiro século até as invasões bárbaras do quinto século, o Império Romano resistiu a uma série de violentos cataclismos societários. Na altura do quinto século, ele sucumbiu em meio a uma miríade de negatividades externas e internas: a peste, a guerra civil, o aviltamento da moeda, a invasão dos bárbaros, a diversidade étnica, a expansão do cristianismo na bacia do Mediterrâneo, o despovoamento … Apesar disso tudo, a elite pagã romana ainda acreditava na Roma Aeterna e se orgulhava de descender de Eneias, não obstante todos os desastres humilhantes que incidiram sobre o Império desde o fim do Caos. Roma tombou violentamente, mas de morte natural, no inverno do ciclo de sua existência.

Ao contrário de como se deu a queda de Roma, o declínio dos Estados Unidos tem sido deliberadamente engendrado por elites hostis. Os imigrantes judeus da Escola de Francforte patologizaram o etnocentrismo branco e, na esteira deles, os esquerdistas transformaram a “doença” no imperdoável crime de “racismo”. Daí, então, o “racismo” passou a ser usado como arma para incriminar os dissidentes raciais contrários à diversidade. A dissidência passou a ser perseguida até que seus membros perderam proeminência social, acabando relegados às margens da sociedade. Nessa condição de quase párias, isolados e estigmatizados, os dissidentes servem de lembrete aos brancos do que pode acontecer com aqueles que se recusam a abandonar sua raça e nação.

Mediante operações de engenharia social, o estabilismo esquerdista concertou a rendição unilateral das nações ocidentais ante as hordas escuras; a maioria dos brancos simplesmente obedeceu aos seus mestres judeo-bolchevistas como se fossem animais amestrados. Poucos brancos arrostaram a cometida. Aparentemente, os brancos foram tão completamente endoutrinados pela mídia e pelo sistema de ensino que terminaram aceitando a transformação demográfica dos Estados Unidos como fato consumado.

Nós podemos considerar o declínio dos Estados Unidos como inexorável por uma série de razões, todas endógenas em última instância, em termos de sua etiologia. Algumas delas, arrolamos abaixo:

  1. a atomização da moderna sociedade americana;
  2. a falta de uma consciência racial branca; e
  3. a exaustão da civilização branca.

A atomização da sociedade tem por causa fatores industriais, tecnológicos e sociopolíticos. Em virtude de certos desenvolvimentos tecnológicos, comunidades inteiras foram desarraigadas, os laços do indivíduo com sua raça e nação sendo rompidos. A população dos Estados Unidos é agora mais móvel do que nunca antes, ao contrário das gerações anteriores. As políticas econômicas neoliberais aumentaram a alienação dos trabalhadores no seio da sociedade dominante, transformando-os em simples engrenagens; tornando-se facilmente substituível, o trabalhador não é mais valorizado pelo aporte de que é capaz. Sua posição na ordem social ficou precária, passando a depender dos caprichos do mercado “livre”. Consequentemente, ele não se sente mais responsável pela sociedade ou pela sorte das futuras gerações, que desgraçadamente sofrerão com o legado maldito deixado para trás.

Na falta de maior solidariedade, grassa o fatalismo e a apatia niilista na sociedade americana. Muitos brancos voltaram-se para as drogas e o álcool, ante o vazio espiritual de suas vidas; a crise do fentanil que se alastra nos Estados Unidos ganha força, pelo menos em parte, da desintegração dos antigos liames comunais e familiares que havia nas precedentes gerações de brancos. Em tal contexto, fica difícil, embora não impossível, manter uma identidade racial branca coerente.

Outrossim, ocorre que os brancos não se veem mais como brancos. Até 1965, a consciência racial branca era critério distintivo da americanidade. Muitos americanos brancos viam-se como brancos e defensores dos interesses brancos. Ainda que não chamados de nacionalistas brancos, eles eram nacionalistas brancos. Desde o Período Colonial até a II Guerra Mundial, a denominação “nacionalismo branco” teria sido redundância nos Estados Unidos, dada a conexão histórica entre a consciência racial branca e a identidade étnica americana.

A partir de 1965, a cultura popular ocidental passou a promover a diversidade em detrimento dos brancos. Para a maioria, uma explícita identidade racial branca não parece assumptível pela consequência da desaprovação social. Sendo agora a identificação racial branca vista como vergonhosa, os brancos repartiram-se segundo linhas culturais, num retorno ao americanismo hifenizado [afroamericano, ítaloamericano etc.], o qual Theodore Roosevelt muito deplorou. Os brancos que decidem desafiar o novo status quo em favor da autodeterminação branca são discriminados e perseguidos.

Além da atomização da sociedade americana, existe outra razão ainda mais profunda para o caráter inevitável da morte dos Estados Unidos. Os brancos, enquanto raça, perderam o seu dinamismo, o assim chamado elã vital. O colapso dos grandes impérios coloniais que se seguiu à II Guerra Mundial explica-se pelo cansaço civilizacional branco. Depois de chegarem a dominar 84% da superfície da Terra em 1914, os brancos ocidentais correm o risco de perder seu território em seus próprios países.

Esse cansaço civilizacional mostrou-se mais evidente em lugares como a Rodésia e a África do Sul. Nestes países, o homem branco entregou suas possessões duramente conquistadas sem opor resistência. Os brancos dotados de consciência racial, que acreditavam merecer o Sul da África por direito de conquista, eram muito poucos para lograr êxito na reação à sua desterritorialização. Eles tiveram de lutar contra guerrilhas afro-marxistas apoiadas pelos soviéticos, contra os aliados judeo-bolchevistas delas e ainda contra os traidores domésticos da quinta-coluna. Se os brancos se recusaram a lutar quando tinham esmagadora superioridade tática, o que se dirá do que farão quando os Estados Unidos forem o Brasil 2.0 por volta do fim deste século?

Em seu livro A hora da decisão (1934), Oswald Spengler escreveu fatidicamente sobre o homem branco que baixa a sua guarda racial:

O homem de cor vê o interior do homem branco quando este fala de “humanidade” e de paz eterna. […] Ele fareja a inadequação do outro, a sua falta de vontade para defender a si mesmo.

O perigo bate à porta. As raças de cor não são pacifistas. Elas não se apegam a uma vida que tenha como único valor a longevidade. Seus homens tomam da espada quando nós a depomos. Eles já temeram o homem branco; agora o desprezam. A nossa sentença é lavrada em seus olhos quando homens e mulheres se comportam como nós fazemos em sua presença, em sua terra ou em nossa própria. Antes os homens de cor tremiam de medo de nosso poder — assim como os povos germânicos diante das primeiras legiões romanas. Hoje, quando eles dispõem de poder, sua alma misteriosa — a qual jamais entenderemos — eleva-se e olha para os brancos embaixo como coisa do passado.

Conforme a compreensão que tem Spengler do desenvolvimento histórico do Ocidente, a “alma megalopolitana”—a que inevitavelmente anima o homem faustiano em seu impulso para o infinito — é consequência do declínio da cultura ocidental ou, como antes denominei, do “cansaço civilizacional”. A alma megalopolitana é atradicional, arreligiosa, hedonista, gosta muito de pão e circo, não tem raízes e tudo vê de perspectiva completamente materialista. Ela se situa em oposição aos valores sociais tradicionais das sociedades indo-arianas, quais sejam: a monogamia patriarcal, a hierarquia, o ânimo de guerra, razão pela qual ela se presta à negação desses valores, com apelo aos seus contrários, isto é: a liberdade sexual, a paz universal, a tolerância, a igualdade, valores estes que a alma megalopolitana abraça, porque eles solapam os valores tradicionais que ela despreza. Ao mesmo tempo, os imigrantes não brancos nos Estados Unidos não acreditam tanto na “humanidade” e na “paz eterna” de seus hospedadores.

A ingenuidade do homem branco, que o faz incapaz de discernir os motivos últimos de seus inimigos, é a razão de sua queda, merecida, aliás, infelizmente. O seu sentimento socialista do mundo, seu cristianismo sem religião (ou, segundo Spengler, sua “moral sem dogma”) cegou-o para a necessidade de sua própria autopreservação. O homem branco não mais enxerga a significação funcional de lemas como “Diversidade é força”, tão caros a não brancos e esquerdistas, que os repetem como mantras para promover os interesses étnicos de não brancos nos Estados Unidos. Quando a raça branca recuperar a sua visão, verá que os Estados Unidos vão-se perdendo sob a ocupação de populações alógenas, mas então poderá ser tarde demais para salvar o seu país.

No livro A decadência do Ocidente, a alma megalopolitana é criatura da estação do inverno no ciclo de vida das culturas. Ela marca o começo do seu fim.


Os Estados Unidos provocam guerras, derrubam regimes e instauram ditaduras amigas em nações não brancas, ainda quando nada disso tenha nenhuma implicação geoestratégica de importância para a segurança nacional americana; os Estados Unidos dissipam preciosos recursos com a perseguição de dissidentes raciais,  mas não podem defender a integridade de seu próprio território contra os bandos de aventureiros do Terceiro Mundo que ameaçam seus limes. Uma das maiores ironias da história ocidental é que os Estados Unidos elevaram-se a grandíssima altura entre as nações e depois desmoronaram e agora afundam no lamaçal social dos não brancos. Muito tempo atrás a nação americana traiu os princípios de sua república aristocrática sobre os quais ela se erguera. Estando agora no fim do caminho que escolheu com esse mau passo que deu, ela termina os seus dias como decadente democracia totalitária com pretensões imperiais.

Os Estados Unidos devem morrer porque os brancos que formaram a espinha dorsal de sua civilização são agora alienados cosmopolitas, poltrões desarraigados. Se as destrutivas políticas seguidas pelas elites mostram-se irreversíveis, isso decorre de não existir mais causa comum para os brancos, nada que os possa reunir e mobilizar. Os Estados Unidos devem morrer, o que não quer dizer que o nacionalismo branco morrerá com eles também. Nações brancas surgiram e desapareceram, mas a raça branca perdura pelo correr das idades. Ao contrário da maioria dos brancos, os dissidentes raciais brancos conservam ao menos forte consciência de sua identidade racial. Basta que pequeno número de brancos racialmente conscientes sobreviva à tendência suicida da maioria branca do abalado império americano, para que a raça branca desmorra e prospere para longa e feliz vida na América do Norte.

Fonte: The Occidental Observer. Autor: Ferdinand Bardamu. Título original: White Nationalism and its Leftist Enemies. Data de publicação: 17 de julho de 2020. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.